|
Post by xray on Mar 10, 2014 11:05:56 GMT 8
Hey All...I wonder if those lost pages of Colonel Bunker's Diary contain more of the Colonel's low esteem for the US Navy/USMC and for Filipinos in general??? As I have remarked, previously, Paul Bunker may have been the bravest Soldier since Audie Murphy, but I will always believe that there will always be some serious questions regarding his views of others and decisions he made. The SS Corregidor affair will always cast a shadow on his Military career in my humble. Just sayin'. I would think it would cast a greater shadow on the captain who attempted to sneak out and run a fort under siege unannounced against orders at night.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2014 12:28:47 GMT 8
Xray: agreed 100%!!!
The sinking of the SS Corregidor is the sole responsibility of her captain, and no one else!
|
|
|
Post by fots2 on Mar 10, 2014 17:16:57 GMT 8
I wouldn't agree with that. According to people including Bunker's fellow officer, he was involved in this incident and not in a positive way. We don't have the complete story to say anything with 100% certainty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2014 22:02:49 GMT 8
Hmmm....let me toss my $0.02 worth...anything that happens aboard a vessel, in port or underway, is the sole responsibility of her master. SS Corregidor sailed (as I understand it) without a schedule. She sailed at night. She did not stop to secure a pilot to traverse the mine field. And (again, as I understand it, and I admit I may be wrong) she did not stop for inspection or clearance or whatever, prior to traversing the mine field. Unless she was expected at Corregidor, her arrival at the mine field was as irregular as it was unexpected (time of night).
By comparison, are there any other records of other civilian vessels transiting the mine field (in either direction) without the assistance of a pilot or clear instructions to proceed from Fort Mills? If the answer to this question is YES, then the road is opened up to blame anyone convenient, but if the answer is NO, then her captain bears sole responsibility as ship's master.
As a matter of fact, if memory serves, there seems to be some debate as to where she actually met her end....
|
|
|
Post by Registrar on Mar 10, 2014 23:11:33 GMT 8
I think that we might refresh certain aspects relating to the tragedy of the SS Corregidor. I recommend close study of the statement by Steiger.
It is an absolutist legal approach that a ship's master is entirely responsible for all misfortunes that beset a boat under his command. That is a maritime concept of prior centuries, and the approach does not apply in the manner suggested.
That a ship's captain may or may not be absolutely responsible under maritime law does not render Col. Bunker immune from exercising his own command responsibility in a manner which may be unlawful. One is not a bar against the other.
My understanding is: * a number of Filipino skippers had failed or neglected to comply with Army rules relative to the minefield in the weeks leading up to the incident; * there was a schedule; * the boat left the dock early as it was already overloaded beyond the safety limits, and significantly more passengers were seeking even then to board; * the boat arrived in advance of the scheduled time; * the boat was identified by the controllers of the minefield; * there was a request to turn off the minefield; * the request was transmitted to Col Bunker; * Col. Bunker refused; * there is no evidence that the refusal was communicated to the ship's master; * the Army knew that the boat had been sunk by a mine; * Some American citizens were killed and some American property was lost; * there should have been an inquiry; there should have been witness statements taken. * if there was no inquiry, was the person who ordered that there be no inquiry one and the same as the person who had refused to deactivate the mines? * if there was an inquiry, why has no record of it ever been released? * the Army thereafter informed all external authorities, particularly the Philippine Commonwealth Government, in a manner that caused persons to believe that the boat had been sunk as the result of a Japanese action. * The cover-story prevented a serious political and social rift between the US Military Authorities and the Philippine Commonwealth Government at a time in which Pres. Quezon was re-examining the US-Philippine relationship. * the Army's cover-story lasted decades, and was widely accepted. Although it was never admitted that there was a cover story, the truth was revealed when the cause of the sinking was listed a US Navy official history. * Col. Bunker's diary for the period prior to 1942 has never been released by his family. As a consequence, whilst we might read his edited diary as a matter of extreme interest, the fact that it has been edited cannot allow it to be considered as a history book of prime record. * The UCMJ does not apply, as the incident predates it.
I think a lot more than two cents needs to be invested in the matter. History is about judgments, not about legal concepts.
|
|
|
Post by fots2 on Mar 11, 2014 0:00:36 GMT 8
happysniper,
If the SS Corregidor had sailed into uncontrolled minefield then the story ends abruptly and you have a valid point. That was not the case and this sinking could have been prevented. When I say Bunker shares the blame for this disaster, I am not referring to any legal concept. What about his moral responsibilities?
Bunker did not start the chain of events that night but he surely could have stopped it. If he had, the result would be a minor footnote in history of the punishment of a boat capatin (if any) and not a major disaster. Over a thousand lives and badly needed war materials were lost. Both these men played key roles.
As I understand the events, Registrar has his ducks lined up correctly. There are details of that night which we do not know and probably never will know. Insight from Bunker’s diary would be helpful, that is why we would like to see it someday.
|
|
|
Post by The Phantom on Mar 11, 2014 2:52:12 GMT 8
There is an interesting comment, (Diaries?) from a relative of Paul T. Bunker, gilbunker in our thread this site, "Col. Paul T Bunker Corregidor Revisited", under Heading "Corregidor Then and Now"?
Aren't most older veteran Officer's always fighting the last war?
|
|
|
Post by okla on Mar 11, 2014 4:20:50 GMT 8
Hey Xray....Had the Filipino Captain been fortunate enough to have slithered thru the minefield unscathed, he should have been prosecuted under Filipino law, lost his license, sent to prison or strung up on the Yardarm, but the fact remains that Colonel Bunker had the authority, responsibility,etc to have negated the whole tragedy. With hindsight, it is obvious that the good Colonel should have ordered the minefield to be deactivated and the Skipper of the SS Corregidor arrested upon arrival at Cebu or where ever she was destined. I have beat on this "dead horse" for too long. I, certainly, wish to welcome Sniper to the Forum. He, obviously, has plenty of new "fodder" for us "Rock Geeks" to chew on.
|
|
|
Post by chadhill on Mar 11, 2014 5:09:45 GMT 8
Wow, looks like I stirred up a little hornet's nest with that long-shot question about the Bunker diary . Phantom, is this the quote you referred to? COL. PAUL D. BUNKER'S CORREGIDOR REVISITED Dec 23, 2009 at 11:10am Quote . Post by gilbunker on Dec 23, 2009 at 11:10am I am very impressed and totally excited to discover this informative site about Col. Paul Bunker and his book. There are other diaries written by the colonel that predate his last one. I have not yet had an opportunity to read them as they are owned by Paul D Bunker III who is actually a nephew of the Colonel. Paul mentions about his genealogical research of the Bunker family history and disappointment about losing the material. He did send information back to the Bunker Family Association for their records and eventual publication. Paul was elected the first president of the Bunker Family Association (BFA) in 1913 and the research of our family continues as we approach our centennial celebration. We celebrated our 93rd reunion (2006) by visiting West Point with an appropriate ceremony at the graves of Paul, his wife and son, Paul Jr. Descendent's of the Colonel attended along with other members of the BFA. The museum had the flag remnant on display for us to gaze and ponder the heroic days on Corregidor. Paul and Paul Jr both graduated from The Point, Paul Sr in 1903, the same class as MacArthur, and they were on Corregidor together. Paul's diary is a fascinating read and now you gentlemen have brought the book to life. For the Bunker Family Association, I thank you for adding your personal experiences to this epic. There is so much to read on these pages and I must now re-read the colonel's book. I shall also inform our membership about your efforts and the OMG photographs. I'm blown away. I would certainly like to shake hands with those who experienced the last days in Corregidor and felt the wrath of Japanese brutality in the POW camps. I was a mere lad of seven in 1942 when Paul lowered the flag but after reading the book would like to add some personal thoughts about this particular event. Paul claims he saved a piece of the flag and sewed it under his arm patch, his secret till almost the end of his days. Knowing how the Japanese would react on finding the remnant, absolutely no one could be witness to the event including those who were there at the time the flag was lowered, and immediately retired to the flames. If he had needle and thread to hide the piece of red, surely he had a knife or razor blade to cut the piece. Just because those that attended the final ceremony didn't see the colonel save the small piece doesn't mean it didn't happened as Paul recorded it in his diary. He didn't want anyone to see it. Boy, would I ever like to walk the tunnels on Corregidor, please keep me informed of visits, maybe, just maybe... Merry Christmas and thanks for the great gift. gil
|
|
|
Post by xray on Mar 11, 2014 14:13:46 GMT 8
Hey Xray....Had the Filipino Captain been fortunate enough to have slithered thru the minefield unscathed, he should have been prosecuted under Filipino law, lost his license, sent to prison or strung up on the Yardarm, but the fact remains that Colonel Bunker had the authority, responsibility,etc to have negated the whole tragedy. With hindsight, it is obvious that the good Colonel should have ordered the minefield to be deactivated and the Skipper of the SS Corregidor arrested upon arrival at Cebu or where ever she was destined. I have beat on this "dead horse" for too long. I, certainly, wish to welcome Sniper to the Forum. He, obviously, has plenty of new "fodder" for us "Rock Geeks" to chew on. I respectfully disagree Ok, though I always enjoy hearing your opinions, they carry weight. You are Monday morning quarterbacking here, it might seem a simple matter of giving the order to flip a few switches and everything will be fine, I doubt if it was that simple. He carried a heavy responsibility, and the safety of an unknown errant ship sailing without orders no doubt loomed very small when compared to the safety of the island fortress and the 1,000's of fighting men stationed there. Not the spot for humanitarians to be calling the shots, I think with the info [or lack thereof] that he had [or didn't have] at that moment in time he made the correct choice. It was a bonafide tragedy to be sure, the captain of the SS Corregidor bears full responsibility for his reckless, unprofessional action that almost could have been predicted would end in disaster before it sailed. Think about it - Would you pack a ship full of people, sail without orders, run a fort under heavy siege at night knowing full well the waters are infested with mines, and just hope that some kind soul disarms them while you are sailing by ?
|
|